I agree that the situation of "infinite supply" is something special, something that has allowed for the developement of something as truely 'communistic' as Linux. However, it occurs to me that basing your argument on the innate selfishness and laziness of humans on the whole is somewhat dubious.
There is the theoretical objection that 'human nature' is culturally given and flexible, and that it is simply ahistorical to predicate such qualities to "humans on the whole."
More telling is the empirical objection: ie. the existence of Linux and OSS. I take it you don't wish to exclude OSS developers from the category "humans on the whole." (Yes I know, they are like onto angels).
The big difference is that for a relatively insubstantial investment, you can get yourself a box and net access and you have the means of contributing, (a function of infinite supply). Even if the vast majority of humans were totally altruistic and industrious, however, it would be difficult for them to give away cars for instance. This is so because the raw materials are in finite supply and must somehow be allocated, the means to produce cars are relatively (compared to PCs) expensive. For most such products, the vast majority of humans don't actually own, and are unlikely to be in a position to own, the means of production.
A purely voluntarist communist society posits the implausible scenario of miners spending hours underground, to come to the surface and give the gold they have dug away to anyone who wants it, only because they know they can go home at night and download the latests kernel patch free of charge, (not to mention the free beer). That being said, the scenario of hackers all around the world, working hard into the wee hours of the morning, all without any hope of renumeration, would have appeared to me, had someone ten years ago put it to me, to be only slightly less implausible.
In any case, the point you make about the special condition of infinte supply appears to me a much better explanation than any theory based on the alleged selfishness of humankind.
I know. I lived in fucking eastern block for 20 years.
'Knowledge' is a difficult word. Perhaps it would be better to say that living in the fucking eastern block for 20 years has left you with strong opinions on the subject. Clearly your opinion is not invariably shared by others, who have experienced both systems first hand. For instance, these experiences have left Valdas Anelauskas with similarly strong opinions, albeit radically different ones.
However the growing importance of the information economy, especially in the countries where capitalism is at its most advanced, might open the possibility of a paradigm shift.
Funny thing is when I have spoken to "communists" on this topic they steadfastly refuse to entertain any notion that something "revolutionary" might be happening in relation to IT, the Net, or especially Linux. It seems they are unable to look anywhere but to the rapidly dwindling factory floors...
I can anticipate the response to this already: "Maoist perversion!"
As I said, I'll presume CMU had the right under the contract to do what it did, though as you rightly point out, whether this is so or not depends upon the particular contract in question... My question relates to the claims the students might have under under natural justice to be heard before the college took action. Is procedural fairness known to US law, does it apply to educational facilities?
The fact that the policy was not regularly enforced would, at least where I live (not-US), make it all more important for the college to hear the students before taking any drastic (if that is in fact what it was) action.
they are within their rights to deny the students access to the network.
I'll presume this is an informed legal opinion based on a incontestible construction of the relevant contract(s),... however, what about the natural justice issues? Or does US law lack the concept of `procedural fairness'. (This is an genuine question, btw, I'd actually like to know)
Quite apart from the privacy problems how about approaching to the students first? Or doesn't audi alteram partem apply to US colleges? One would think a stern "don't do it again" would suffice.
Fascism is a word manufactured to insulate it from socialism.
i see history is not your strong point... fascism was a name given to themselves by the movement which took power in italy nearly a decade before the nsdap came to power in germany. their main claim to fame, and the reason for their success, is that they provided an effective (ie violent) means, legal means having proved insufficient, of curbing the rising influence of the italian socialist party.
to call fascism `socialist,' (notwithstanding the fact that mussolini was a defector trom the psi) is akin calling the kkk a black rights movement.
Incorrect. Your VISUAL media which you created was translated into physical media in the form of brail by a program at the other end of the connection.
You're slightly confused here. The Web is a bunch of signals coming down the wire, very physical and not, to most of use, that visual. Your browser converts it to something visual, or into synthesised speech, or into braille (depending on your browser.) According to your argument, when you look at a page on your visual browser, it would no longer [be] part of the Web, would it?
From this distance it does appear that the US authorities are all to ready to apply criminal sanctions to Internet related activities. I would be interested to find out if breaches of copyright in other settings can attract criminal penalties under US law. What would be the situation for instance, if Mr Levy was giving away music copied onto cassettes in the local mall?
Compare also the recent Australian Federal Court decision on CyberSquatting, in which an already existing equitable remedy was applied, with the suggestions before the US Congress, that CyberSquatting be similarly criminalised. (This is a comparison Congress should imho be invited to make).
Now regulators will regulate, and the usual knee-jerk reactions to any attempts to legislate for the Net are simply unrealistic. It is, however, a fairly conservative demand to insist upon this basic principle: That nothing which is legal in the world at large be made illegal on the Internet. A corollary of this principle is that no infringement which gives rise only to civil liability in the world at large be made criminal oexclusively if it occurs on the Net.
The No Electronic Theft Act, is disturbing because it offends this principle and, as the earlier poster pointed out, singles computer users out for harsher treatment than similar offenders in receive irl.
[Spelling Nazis: please check the official Dictionary for my spelling jurisdiction before complaining, thanks.]
Slashdot Mirror
There is the theoretical objection that 'human nature' is culturally given and flexible, and that it is simply ahistorical to predicate such qualities to "humans on the whole."
More telling is the empirical objection: ie. the existence of Linux and OSS. I take it you don't wish to exclude OSS developers from the category "humans on the whole." (Yes I know, they are like onto angels).
The big difference is that for a relatively insubstantial investment, you can get yourself a box and net access and you have the means of contributing, (a function of infinite supply). Even if the vast majority of humans were totally altruistic and industrious, however, it would be difficult for them to give away cars for instance. This is so because the raw materials are in finite supply and must somehow be allocated, the means to produce cars are relatively (compared to PCs) expensive. For most such products, the vast majority of humans don't actually own, and are unlikely to be in a position to own, the means of production.
A purely voluntarist communist society posits the implausible scenario of miners spending hours underground, to come to the surface and give the gold they have dug away to anyone who wants it, only because they know they can go home at night and download the latests kernel patch free of charge, (not to mention the free beer). That being said, the scenario of hackers all around the world, working hard into the wee hours of the morning, all without any hope of renumeration, would have appeared to me, had someone ten years ago put it to me, to be only slightly less implausible.
In any case, the point you make about the special condition of infinte supply appears to me a much better explanation than any theory based on the alleged selfishness of humankind.
'Knowledge' is a difficult word. Perhaps it would be better to say that living in the fucking eastern block for 20 years has left you with strong opinions on the subject. Clearly your opinion is not invariably shared by others, who have experienced both systems first hand. For instance, these experiences have left Valdas Anelauskas with similarly strong opinions, albeit radically different ones.
Funny thing is when I have spoken to "communists" on this topic they steadfastly refuse to entertain any notion that something "revolutionary" might be happening in relation to IT, the Net, or especially Linux. It seems they are unable to look anywhere but to the rapidly dwindling factory floors ...
I can anticipate the response to this already: "Maoist perversion!"
As I said, I'll presume CMU had the right under the contract to do what it did, though as you rightly point out, whether this is so or not depends upon the particular contract in question ... My question relates to the claims the students might have under under natural justice to be heard before the college took action. Is procedural fairness known to US law, does it apply to educational facilities?
The fact that the policy was not regularly enforced would, at least where I live (not-US), make it all more important for the college to hear the students before taking any drastic (if that is in fact what it was) action.
I'll presume this is an informed legal opinion based on a incontestible construction of the relevant contract(s), ... however, what about the natural justice issues? Or does US law lack the concept of `procedural fairness'. (This is an genuine question, btw, I'd actually like to know)
Quite apart from the privacy problems how about approaching to the students first? Or doesn't audi alteram partem apply to US colleges? One would think a stern "don't do it again" would suffice.
i see history is not your strong point ... fascism was a name given to themselves by the movement which took power in italy nearly a decade before the nsdap came to power in germany. their main claim to fame, and the reason for their success, is that they provided an effective (ie violent) means, legal means having proved insufficient, of curbing the rising influence of the italian socialist party.
to call fascism `socialist,' (notwithstanding the fact that mussolini was a defector trom the psi) is akin calling the kkk a black rights movement.
You're slightly confused here. The Web is a bunch of signals coming down the wire, very physical and not, to most of use, that visual. Your browser converts it to something visual, or into synthesised speech, or into braille (depending on your browser.) According to your argument, when you look at a page on your visual browser, it would no longer [be] part of the Web, would it?
"all to (sic) ready" was a typo, of course :)
From this distance it does appear that the US authorities are all to ready to apply criminal sanctions to Internet related activities. I would be interested to find out if breaches of copyright in other settings can attract criminal penalties under US law. What would be the situation for instance, if Mr Levy was giving away music copied onto cassettes in the local mall?
Compare also the recent Australian Federal Court decision on CyberSquatting, in which an already existing equitable remedy was applied, with the suggestions before the US Congress, that CyberSquatting be similarly criminalised. (This is a comparison Congress should imho be invited to make).
Now regulators will regulate, and the usual knee-jerk reactions to any attempts to legislate for the Net are simply unrealistic. It is, however, a fairly conservative demand to insist upon this basic principle: That nothing which is legal in the world at large be made illegal on the Internet. A corollary of this principle is that no infringement which gives rise only to civil liability in the world at large be made criminal oexclusively if it occurs on the Net.
The No Electronic Theft Act, is disturbing because it offends this principle and, as the earlier poster pointed out, singles computer users out for harsher treatment than similar offenders in receive irl.
[Spelling Nazis: please check the official Dictionary for my spelling jurisdiction before complaining, thanks.]